Next Article in Journal
ANA: Ant Nesting Algorithm for Optimizing Real-World Problems
Previous Article in Journal
Semiring-Valued Fuzzy Sets and F-Transform
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A New Modified Fixed-Point Iteration Process

1
Department of Mathematics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India
2
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
3
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 23218, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2021, 9(23), 3109; https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233109
Submission received: 28 October 2021 / Revised: 18 November 2021 / Accepted: 22 November 2021 / Published: 2 December 2021

Abstract

:
In this paper, we present a new modified iteration process in the setting of uniformly convex Banach space. The newly obtained iteration process can be used to approximate a common fixed point of three nonexpansive mappings. We have obtained strong and weak convergence results for three nonexpansive mappings. Additionally, we have provided an example to support the theoretical proof. In the process, several relevant results are improved and generalized.

1. Introduction

Nonlinear analysis is a natural mixture of Topology, Analysis and Linear Algebra. Fixed-point theory is a very challenging and rapidly growing area of nonlinear functional analysis. Obviously, results dealing with the existence of fixed points are termed as fixed point theorems. Such theorems are very important tools for proving the existence and uniqueness of the solutions to various mathematical models representing phenomena arising in different fields such as: optimization theories, variational inequalities, equilibrium problems, economic theories, chemical equations, neutron transport theory, epidemics and flow of fluids besides facilitating existence and uniqueness theories of differential, integral and partial differential equations etc. Historically, the origin of fixed point theorem is attributed to the work on differential equations by the French mathematicians H. Poincare and Emile Picard. At the end of the 19th century, this theorem was moulded into several successive versions. The general case was first proved in 1910 by Jacques Hadamard and then in 1912 by Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer [1]. Fixed-point theory is relatively old but still a young area of research. There exists a vast literature on fixed-point theory and this is still growing [2,3,4,5,6]. Banach Contraction Principle [7] is one of the prime results of fixed-point theory. The early findings in fixed-point theory revolve around generalization of Banach Contraction Principle. The entire mathematics community had to wait for the first fixed-point theorem for nonexpansive mapping for 43 years. Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space P. Then, a mapping G : J J is said to be nonexpansive if G c G b c b for all c , b J . A point c J is said to be a fixed point of G if G c = c . We will denote the set of fixed points of G by F ( G ) . G is called quasi-nonexpansive if F ( G ) and G c e c e for all c J with e F ( G ) . It is well known that every nonexpansive mapping with a fixed point is quasi-nonexpansive mapping. It is well known Banach Contraction Principle does not hold good for nonexpansive mappings i.e. nonexpansive mapping need not admit a fixed point on complete metric space. Additionally, Picard iteration need not be convergent for a nonexpansive map in a complete metric space. This led to the beginning of a new era of fixed-point theory for nonexpansive mappings using geometric properties. In 1965, Browder [8], Göhde [9] and Kirk [10] gave three basic existence results in respect of nonexpansive mappings.
Approximation of fixed points in different domains for nonlinear mappings using the different iterative processes is the thrust of fixed-point theory. Owing to its importance, fixed-point theory is attracting young researchers across the world and in the last few years many iterative processes have been obtained in different domains. To name a few, we have Mann iteration [11], Ishikawa iteration [12], Halpern iteration [13], Noor iteration [14], S-iteration [15] and Abbas et al. iteration process [16]. In 2016, Thakur et al. [17] obtained a new iteration process and proved some convergence results. The authors also claimed that their process converges faster than Picard, Mann, Ishikawa, Noor, S and Abbas et al. iteration process. In order to define their iteration, let G : J J be a nonexpansive mapping, then a sequence { c n } is constructed from arbitrary c 1 J by:
a n = ( 1 κ n ) c n + κ n G c n b n = ( 1 δ n ) a n + δ n G a n c n + 1 = ( 1 μ n ) G a n + μ n G b n , n N
where { μ n } , { δ n } and { κ n } are real sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) .
Motivated and inspired by the research going on in this direction, we introduce a new iteration process for approximating common fixed point of three nonexpansive mappings. Let G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be three nonexpansive mappings, then the sequence { c n } is generated iteratively by c 1 J and
a n = ( 1 κ n ) c n + κ n G 1 c n b n = ( 1 δ n ) a n + δ n G 2 a n c n + 1 = ( 1 μ n ) G 2 a n + μ n G 3 b n , n N
where { μ n } , { δ n } and { κ n } are real sequences in ( 0 , 1 ) .
The aim of this paper is to prove some weak and strong convergence results involving the iteration process (2) for three nonexpansive mappings. Furthermore, we provide a numerical example to support our theoretical claims. Our results extend the corresponding results of [17].

2. Preliminaries

For making our paper self-contained, we collect some basic definitions and needed results.
Definition 1.
A Banach space P is said to be uniformly convex if for each ϵ ( 0 , 2 ] there is a α > 0 such that for c , b P with c 1 , b 1 and c b > ϵ , we have
c + b 2 < 1 α .
Definition 2.
A Banach space P is said to satisfy the Opial’s condition if for any sequence { c n } in P which converges weakly to c P i.e., c n c implies that
lim sup n c n c < lim sup n c n b
for all b P with b c .
Examples of Banach spaces satisfying this condition are Hilbert spaces and all l p spaces ( 1 < p < ) . On the other hand, L p [ 0 , 2 π ] with 1 < p 2 fail to satisfy Opial’s condition.
A mapping G : J P is demiclosed at b P if for each sequence { c n } in J and each c P , c n c and G c n b imply that c J and G c = b .
Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Banach P, and let { c n } be a bounded sequence in P. For c P write:
r ( c , { c n } ) = lim sup n d ( c , c n ) .
The asymptotic radius of { c n } relative to J is given by
r ( { c n } ) = inf { r ( c , c n ) : c J }
and the asymptotic center A ( J , { c n } ) of { c n } is defined as:
A ( J , { c n } ) = { c J : r ( c , { c n } ) = r ( { c n } ) } .
It is known that in a uniformly convex Banach space, A ( J , { c n } ) consists of exactly one point.
Next, we list a lemma which will be useful in our subsequent discussion.
Lemma 1
([8]). Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space P and G a nonexpansive mapping on J. Then, I G is demiclosed at zero.
The following lemma due to Schu [18] is very useful in our subsequent discussion.
Lemma 2.
Let P be a uniformly convex Banach space and { t n } be any sequence such that 0 < p t n q < 1 for some p , q R and for all n 1 . Let { c n } and { b n } be any two sequences of P such that lim sup n c n r , lim sup n b n r and lim sup n t n c n + ( 1 t n ) b n = r for some r 0 . Then, lim n c n b n = 0 .

3. Convergence Results

Lemma 3.
Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a Banach space P and G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be three nonexpansive mappings with F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . Let { c n } be defined by the iteration process ( 1.2 ) . Then
(i) lim n | | c n e | | exists for all e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ,
(ii) lim n | | G 1 c n c n | | = lim n | | G 2 c n c n | | = lim n | | G 3 c n c n | | = 0 .
Proof. 
(i). Let e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . Then, using (2) we get
| | a n e | | = | | ( 1 κ n ) c n + κ n G 1 c n e | | ( 1 κ n ) | | c n e | | + κ n | | G 1 c n e | | ( 1 κ n ) | | c n e | | + κ n | | c n e | | = | | c n e | |
and
| | b n e | | = | | ( 1 δ n ) a n + δ n G 2 a n ) e | | ( 1 δ n ) | | a n e | | + δ n | | G 2 a n e | | ( 1 δ n ) | | a n e | | + δ n | | a n e | | = | | a n e | | | | c n e | | .
Using (3) and (4) we obtain
| | c n + 1 e | | = | | ( 1 μ n ) G 2 a n + μ n G 3 b n e | | ( 1 μ n ) | | G 2 a n e | | + μ n | | G 3 b n e | | ( 1 μ n ) | | a n e | | + μ n | | b n e | | | | a n e | | | | c n e | | .
Thus, { | | c n e | | } is bounded and non-increasing for all e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) which gives that lim n | | c n e | | exists for all e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) .
(ii) Let
lim n | | c n e | | = r .
From (3) and (4), we obtain
| | c n + 1 e | | | | a n e | | | | c n e | |
which gives
lim n | | a n e | | = r .
Additionally, Since G 1 is nonexpansive so, we have
lim sup n | | G 1 c n e | | lim sup n | | c n e | | = r .
Now, (6)–(8) along with Lemma 2 gives
lim n | | G 1 c n c n | | = 0 .
From (4) and (7), we have
lim sup n | | b n e | | lim sup n | | a n e | | = r .
Now, consider
| | c n + 1 e | | ( 1 μ n ) | | a n e | | + μ n | | b n e | | ( 1 μ n ) | | c n e | | + μ n | | b n e | |
which gives
| | c n e | | | | b n e | | + 1 μ n ( | | c n e | | | | c n + 1 e | | ) .
Therefore, we get
r lim inf n | | b n e | | .
On using (10) and (11), we obtain
lim n | | b n e | | = r .
Additionally, nonexpansiveness of G 2 and (7) yields
lim sup n | | G 2 a n e | | r .
From (7), (12), (13) and Lemma 2 we obtain
lim n | | G 2 a n a n | | = 0 .
Consider
| | a n c n | | = | | ( 1 κ n ) c n + κ n G 1 c n c n | | = κ n | | G 1 c n c n | | .
which on using (9) results into
lim n | | a n c n | | = 0 .
Now,
| | G 2 c n c n | | | | G 2 c n G 2 a n | | + | | G 2 a n a n | | + | | a n c n | | | | G 2 a n a n | | + 2 | | a n c n | |
which on using (14) and (15) yields
lim n | | G 2 c n c n | | = 0 .
Now, since G 3 is nonexpansive, so we h
lim sup n | | G 3 b n e | | lim sup n | | b n e | | = r .
On using, (6), (13), (17) and Lemma 2, we obtain
lim n | | G 2 a n G 3 b n | | = 0 .
Additionally,
| | b n c n | | = | | ( 1 δ n ) a n + δ n G 2 a n c n | | ( 1 δ n ) | | a n c n | | + δ n ( | | G 2 a n a n | | + | | a n c n | | )
which along with (14) and (15) results into
lim n | | b n c n | | = 0 .
Now,
| | G 3 c n c n | | | | G 3 c n G 3 b n | | + | | G 3 b n G 2 a n | | + | | G 2 a n a n | | + | | a n c n | | | | c n b n | | + | | G 3 b n G 2 a n | | + | | G 2 a n a n | | + | | a n c n | |
on using (14), (15), (18) and (19), we obtain
lim n | | G 3 c n c n | | = 0 .
 □
Now, we prove the weak convergence of iteration process (2) using Opial property.
Theorem 1.
Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space P which satisfies the Opial’s condition and G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be three nonexpansive mapping with F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . If { c n } is defined by the iteration process (2), then { c n } converges weakly to a common fixed point of G 1 , G 2 and G 3 .
Proof. 
Let e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . Then, from Lemma 3 lim n | | c n e | | exists. In order to show the weak convergence of the iteration process (2) to a common fixed point of G 1 , G 2 and G 3 , we will prove that { c n } has a unique weak subsequential limit in F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . For this, let { c n j } and { c n k } be two subsequences of { c n } which converges weakly to w and u respectively. By Lemma 3, we have lim n | | G 1 c n c n | | = lim n | | G 2 c n c n | | = lim n | | G 3 c n c n | | = 0 and using the Lemma 1, we have I G 1 , I G 2 and I G 3 are demiclosed at zero. So w , u F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) .
Next, we show the uniqueness. Since w , u F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) , so lim n | | c n w | | and lim n | | c n u | | exists. Let w u . Then, by Opial’s condition, we obtain
lim n | | c n w | | = lim n | | c n j w | | < lim n | | c n j u | | = lim n | | c n u | | = lim n | | c n k u | | < lim n | | c n k w | | = lim n | | c n w | |
which is a contradiction, so w = u . Thus, { c n } converges weakly to a common fixed point of G 1 , G 2 and G 3 . □
Next, we establish some strong convergence results for iteration process (2).
Theorem 2.
Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space P and G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be three nonexpansive mappings with F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . If { c n } is defined by the iteration process (2), then { c n } converges to a point of F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) if and only if lim inf n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 .
Proof. 
If the sequence { c n } converges to a point e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) , then it is obvious that lim inf n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 .
For the converse part, assume that lim inf n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 . From Lemma 3, we have lim n | | c n e | | exists for all e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) , which gives
| | c n + 1 e | | | | c n e | | for any e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 )
which yields
d ( c n + 1 , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) .
Thus, { d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) } forms a decreasing sequence which is bounded below by zero as well, so we obtain lim n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) exists. As, lim inf n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 so lim n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 .
Next, we prove that { c n } is a Cauchy sequence in J. Let ϵ > 0 be arbitrarily chosen. Since lim n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 , there exists n 0 such that for all n n 0 , we have
d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) < ϵ 4 .
In particular,
inf { | | c n 0 e | | : e F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) } < ϵ 4 ,
so there must exist a b F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) such that
| | c n 0 b | | < ϵ 2 .
Thus, for m , n n 0 , we have
| | c n + m c n | | | | c n + m b | | + | | c n b | | < 2 | | c n 0 b | | < 2 ϵ 2 = ϵ
which shows that { c n } is a Cauchy sequence. Since J is a closed subset of a Banach space P, therefore { c n } must converge in J. Let, lim n c n = s for some s J . Now using lim n | | G 1 c n c n | | = 0 , we obtain
| | s G 1 s | | | | s c n | | + | | c n G 1 c n | | + | | G 1 c n G 1 s | | | | s c n | | + | | c n G 1 c n | | + | | c n s | | 0 as n
and hence s = G 1 s . Similarly, we can show that s = G 2 s and s = G 3 s , thus s F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . This proves our result. □
Three mappings G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J are said to satisfy the Condition (A) ([19]) if there exists a nondecreasing function t : [ 0 , ) [ 0 , ) with t ( 0 ) = 0 and t ( r ) > 0 for all r ( 0 , ) such that
u G 1 u t ( d ( u , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) )
or
u G 2 u t ( d ( u , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) )
or
u G 3 u t ( d ( u , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) )
for all u J .
Theorem 3.
Let J be a nonempty closed convex subset of a uniformly convex Banach space P. Let G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be three nonexpansive mapping such that F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) and { c n } be the sequence defined by (2). If G 1 , G 2 and G 3 satisfies Condition (A), then { c n } converges strongly to a point of F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) .
Proof. 
From (20) we obtain lim n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) exists.
Additionally, by Lemma 3, we have lim n | | c n G 1 c n | | = lim n | | c n G 2 c n | | = lim n | | c n G 3 c n | | = 0 .
It follows from condition (A) that
lim n t ( d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) ) lim n | | c n G 1 c n | | = 0 ,
or
lim n t ( d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) ) lim n | | c n G 2 c n | | = 0 ,
or
lim n t ( d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) ) lim n | | c n G 3 c n | | = 0 ,
so that lim n t ( d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) ) = 0 .
Since t is a nondecreasing function satisfying t ( 0 ) = 0 and t ( r ) > 0 for all r ( 0 , ) , therefore lim n d ( c n , F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) ) = 0 .
By Theorem 2, the sequence { c n } converges strongly to a point of F ( G 1 ) F ( G 2 ) F ( G 3 ) . □

4. Numerical Example

In this section, with the help of an example we will show the convergence of ( 1.2 ) to common fixed point of three nonexpansive mappings.
Example 1.
Let P = R with the usual norm, J = [ 0 , ) and G 1 , G 2 , G 3 : J J be defined as: G 1 = c 3 , G 2 = c 4 and G 3 = c 5 .
It is very easy to show that G 1 , G 2 and G 3 are nonexpansive mappings and 0 is their common fixed point. Set μ n = 1 3 n + 7 , δ n = 2 n 5 n + 2 and κ n = n n + 2 . We obtain the following tables and graphs for different initial values.
It is evident from below Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2 that our Algorithm (1.2) converges efficiently to common fixed point of three above mentioned nonexpansive mappings.

5. Conclusions

A new iteration process is proposed in the framework of uniformly convex Banach space dealing with the common fixed point of three nonexpansive mappings. Some convergence results are also proved along with a numerical example. It should be noted that G 1 = G 2 = G 3 = G is a special case of (2), so our main results extend the results of [17] from one nonexpansive mapping to three nonexpansive mappings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.U.; Formal analysis, C.G.; Funding acquisition, A.A.N.A.; Investigation, C.G.; Methodology, C.G. and I.U.; Supervision, A.A.N.A. and I.U.; Validation, C.G.; Writing—original draft, C.G.; Writing—review and editing, A.A.N.A. and I.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, grant No. D-051-363-1440.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the anonymous referees for. This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant No. D-051-363-1440. The authors, therefore, gratefully acknowledge DSR technical and financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brouwer, L. Uber Abbildungen von Mannigfaltigkeiten. Math. Ann. 1912, 70, 97–115. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yao, Y.; Leng, L.; Postolache, M.; Zheng, X. Mann-type iteration method for solving the split common fixed point problem. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2017, 18, 875–882. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yao, Y.; Qin, X.; Yao, J.C. Projection methods for firmly type nonexpansive operators. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2018, 19, 407–415. [Google Scholar]
  4. Garodia, C.; Uddin, I. Approximating common fixed points of non-expansive mappings in CAT(0) spaces. U.P.B. Sci. Bull. Ser. A 2019, 81, 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  5. Garodia, C.; Uddin, I. A new iterative method for solving split feasibility problem. J. Appl. Anal. Comput. 2020, 10, 986–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Garodia, C.; Uddin, I. A new fixed-point algorithm for finding the solution of a delay differential equation. Aims Math. 2020, 5, 3182–3200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Banach, S. Sur les operations dans les ensembles abstraits et leurs applications. Fundam. Math. 1922, 3, 133–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Browder, F.E. Nonexpansive nonlinear operators in a Banach space. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1965, 54, 1041–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Göhde, D. Zum Prinzip der kontraktiven abbildung. Math. Nachr. 1965, 30, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kirk, W.A. A fixed point theorem for mappings which do not increase distances. Am. Math. Mon. 1965, 72, 1004–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Mann, W.R. Mean value methods in iteration. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1953, 4, 506–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ishikawa, S. Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Halpern, B. Fixed points of nonexpanding maps. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1967, 73, 957–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Noor, M.A. New approximation schemes for general variational inequalities. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2000, 251, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Regan, R.P.A.D.Ó.; Sahu, D.R. Iterative construction of fixed points of nearly asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2007, 8, 61–79. [Google Scholar]
  16. Abbas, M.; Nazir, T. A new faster iteration process applied to constrained minimization and feasibility problems. Mat. Vesn. 2014, 66, 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  17. Thakur, B.S.; Thakur, D.; Postolache, M. A New iteration scheme for approximating fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Filomat 2016, 30, 2711–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Schu, J. Weak and strong convergence to fixed points of asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1991, 43, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Senter, H.F.; Dotson, W.G. Approximating fixed points of nonexpansive mappings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Graph corresponding to Table 1.
Figure 1. Graph corresponding to Table 1.
Mathematics 09 03109 g001
Figure 2. Graph corresponding to Table 2.
Figure 2. Graph corresponding to Table 2.
Mathematics 09 03109 g002
Table 1. Values of the iteration corresponding different initial values near 0.
Table 1. Values of the iteration corresponding different initial values near 0.
StepWhen c 1 = 0.5 When c 1 = 0.7 When c 1 = 0.9
10.50.70.9
20.093611110.13105560.1685
30.015121790.021170510.02721923
40.0022098950.0030938530.00397781
50.00030017440.00042024420.000540314
60.000038554150.000053975810.00006939747
7 4.737341 × 10 6 6.632277 × 10 6 8.527214 × 10 6
8 5.615388 × 10 7 7.861544 × 10 7 1.01077 × 10 6
Table 2. Values of the iteration corresponding different initial values which is away from 0.
Table 2. Values of the iteration corresponding different initial values which is away from 0.
StepWhen c 1 = 10 When c 1 = 100 When c 1 = 1000
1101001000
21.87222218.72222187.2222
30.30243593.02435930.24359
40.044197890.441978974.419789
50.0060034880.060034880.6003488
60.0007710830.0077108370.0771083
70.000094746820.00094746820.009474682
80.000011230780.00011230780.001123078
9 1.292143 × 10 6 0.000012921430.0001292143
10 1.449783 × 10 7 1.449783 × 10 6 0.00001449783
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Garodia, C.; Abdou, A.A.N.; Uddin, I. A New Modified Fixed-Point Iteration Process. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3109. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233109

AMA Style

Garodia C, Abdou AAN, Uddin I. A New Modified Fixed-Point Iteration Process. Mathematics. 2021; 9(23):3109. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garodia, Chanchal, Afrah A. N. Abdou, and Izhar Uddin. 2021. "A New Modified Fixed-Point Iteration Process" Mathematics 9, no. 23: 3109. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop